Hi Shadow, Yes they do have someone else's address on them - Its an address in Chelsea in London from what I can make out, either way its not my address nor have I ever lived at that address. Yeah have checked my credit files and its not listed anywhere.... There are only 4 listed payments into the account over the years. 1) - The £100 they say I made (it says Inter Bank Transfer by Card Payment) 2) - £7000K (They originally said I made that payment but its not submitted anywhere in their evidence) which says on the statement from suspense 3) - £500 which says on the statement from suspense 4) - £23,000K which says BAL TO BBD FINCON Then it says NIL balance account closed. The final statement shows a balance of NIL....

Its weird because in a letter to me in July they said it was not statute barred because a payment of 7K was made. Then in their affidavidt then make no mention of this, only of a different payment. However a year prior to the 7K a payment was made for £100.00. (I never made this payment). I think this comes from the fact that a payment for 7K was made in 2005 then a week after, according to the statements, another payment for for 22K was made and then the account closed and returned to a Nil balance. I am totally confused by all of this.....

It says it was for £100.00 Card Payment - no other information. Whoever made this payment it was not me.

No it was not set aside. It was for direction, whatever that means - I have to reply to the witness statement. They are sending me the next steps in the post - but the way the post is working at the moment who knows when I shall get that!

This is what I put as my defense (form 6.5) "make oath and say as follows: 1. That on XXXX the statutory demand exhibited hereto and marked “A” came into my hands. 2. That I do not admit the debt because the debt is in dispute, it is not acknowledged and is statute barred. The creditor has defaulted under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for failing to provide a true signed and executed copy of the alleged agreement on request within the prescribed period. The prescribed period as stated in SI 1983/1569 Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 is 12 working days. Under the provisions of s78 (6), the creditor is not entitled to enforce the alleged agreement while this default continues. My request under s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was sent to the creditor who claims to have purchased this agreement from the Royal Bank of Scotland, Plc and have raised the statutory demand. I have sent two separate letters (Dated XXXXX a copy exhibited hereto and marked “B” and the dated XXXXXX a copy exhibited hereto and marked “C”) requesting a copy of the singed and executed alleged agreement which to date have been ignored by the creditor. At this present date XXXXXX, the creditor has had a total 42 days to comply with the request made, and is therefore not only in default as stated above but has also committed a summary criminal offence. Whilst totally disputing the debt I believe that the amount of £XXXXX referred to in the statutory demand includes a substantial sum of unlawful penalty charges. The creditor has ignored all my requests to provided further information regarding the charges they, or the previous/original creditor (Royal Bank of Scotland, Plc) have added to the account, and still have not provided a statement of account which is required under s78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The debt is barred by the Statute of Limitations Act 1980 as no acknowledgement of any nature has been made within the last six years or, indeed, since XXXXX. I put the creditor to strict proof of the contrary. Further the creditor has chosen to serve a statutory demand by ‘regular’ post in full knowledge of the fact that the debt is subject to an ongoing legal dispute. It is an abuse of the process of the court and harassment to send out a statutory demand by post with no intention of relying on it in bankruptcy proceedings. This sort of practice once cost a creditor its Consumer Credit licence (Credit Default Register Limited, licence number 0154753 terminated 5 May 1993). At this present date XXXXXX I sent the creditor a letter (by Royal Mail Special Delivery), copy exhibited and hereto marked “D”, restating that the creditor has failed to fulfill my legal request for a true signed and executed copy of the alleged credit agreement and that they are breach of the law as they are trying to collect a debt that they know to be barred by the Statute of Limitations Act 1980. For specific reference to BARRY DAVIES I have also sent additional copies of the aforementioned letters exhibited hereto and marked “B” and “C”. In of the matters pleaded above, I avers that the service of the statutory demand is demonstrably frivolous, intimidatory and an abuse of process in that the creditor is using the Insolvency Service as a tool for debt collection when the creditor has not provided any evidence a debt exits and is barred by statute. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the statutory demand be struck out or set aside. Further, I invite the court to make an order of costs in my favour in respect of the reasonable cost of researching, preparing and submitting this application and of attending any hearings in respect thereof. I make this statement with the sworn belief that all facts stated are true." The judge seemed to have no interest - What did I do wrong guys?

CRIKEY.....THAT WAS NOT GOOD. So, CapQuest DID send a someone along to represent them. We spent a total of 6 Mins in front of the Judge. Judge did not seem all that interested in discussing the case other than to say that he saw the dodgy bank statements and that I need to file a response to CapQuest's witness statement (I think thats what he said) and that it had better be something of substance or I would louse. Next steps are by the 9th I respond in writing, CapQuest will then have several days to reply then another session but I did not need to attend that in person - is that right? apparently someone from the court will write to me with the details and next steps. It all happened so fast - not feeling to good about this

Thanks Guys - well fingers crossed for the AM - I will let you all know how it goes.....

Thanks The_Shadow and 42man, The letter is NOT marked "without prejudice" - But it is signed by a real person (a Legal Support Person), the first time they have ever sent me a letter with a real signature.

OK - Weird..... I just got home from work today and I had waiting for me a letter from CapQuest stating: 1) They will have an agent at Court instructed to oppose my application to set aside the SD and 2) They do not accept the debt BUT because of time, costs and bla bla bla they would be willing to have the SD set aside as long as there in no order for costs and that I should contact them by 3PM today to let them know. NOW - I just got this so its not possible for me to contact them - but what are they playing at? this seems madness, however if I had of read this before I went into the office I probably would have called and agreed as I cant deal with the hassle of all this - as it stands off I go to Court tomorrow ;( - its all so bloody weird!!!!!

Yeah, I have my costs all worked out and in the format advised at the start of this thread. So fingers crossed for Thursday

No I have never lived at that address, I wish - looks like quite a smart address in Chelsea

Thanks guys for all your help - Do I need to type up a withness statement or not in response to the one CapQuest sent? I go to Court Thursday. I don't have copies of the original receipts when I sent them in June, but I do when I sent them a copy of my application to have the SD set aside from late july, which they have as I added them to my application as exhibits. I assume that, that counts as a proper request as they have seen them in july? As regards the mystery £7000 they now say it was not 7000 but only 100 and on a different date. When I looked at the statements the provided 4 separate payments totaling 30K were made before the account balance brought to nil and then closed.

Thanks - I am starting to freak out a little to be honest......they have still not provided a copy of any agreement.....

OK Guys I need help!!!!!!! I am in Court in a few days and CapQuest have sent a whiteness statement response which makes no sense to me what so ever. I dont have a Scanner so I shall type of what they say: 1) " In Paragraph 1 of the Applicants Affidvit: he states that he does not admit the debt because the debt is in dispute". I submit that a mere denial is not evidence of a dispute and if the applicant disputes the debt he should provide valid reasons for that dispute. These have not been provided to the Repsondent and the Apllicant merely says the debt is in dispute" 2) The Applicant makes reference in his affidavid to his request under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act for a copu of the Signed Agreements. The applicant states that these requests were made by letters dated the 10 of June and 20th of July. Upon checking the respondents records neither of these letters were received by the respondent. I can confirm following the applications were made for a copy of the agreement but will not be available in time for the hearing" 3) The Applicant states in that the "debt is statute barred". We can confirm that a payment was made 12th of January 2005. This payment is shown in the copu Statements exhibited to this my whiteness statement. I therefore submit that this debt is not statute barred. 4) The grounds of the application seem to be that the debt is disputed on grounds which appear to the court to be substantial. This is the requirement of Rule 6.5(4)(b) of the insolvency Rules 1986. I submit that the matters which I have set out above show that these are not substantial grounds for disputing the debt. I respectfully submit that the applicant has not shown that there are grounds upon which the Statuary Demand should be set aside. Not sure what to do - they also sent a copy of several sheets of a bank statement (loan account). Which is at the different address to that of myself but should that payments to the account where of or nearly £30K cleaning the account of all arrears 2006, when the account was closed. this makes no sense to me.... Please please please help in responding to this would be greatly appreciated.

Asking which DCA is the worst is like asking which lunatic in a nut house is the most crazy. while some may better than others, some may be good and some may be bad, but you really cant escape the simple truth that they are all still lunatics locked up in the same nut house together.